IRC log of sparql on 2010-10-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:55:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:55:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:55:58 [LeeF]
does the speaker phone work?
13:56:02 [ericP]
13:56:05 [LeeF]
13:56:10 [LeeF]
no one else here so hopefully i won't bother anyone :)
13:56:12 [ericP]
pretty well, i hear, from those who have to listen to it
13:56:51 [LeeF]
trackbot, start meeting
13:56:53 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:56:53 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sparql
13:56:55 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
13:56:55 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:56 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:56:56 [trackbot]
Date: 05 October 2010
13:57:00 [LeeF]
zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:57:00 [Zakim]
ok, LeeF, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM already started
13:57:10 [LeeF]
13:57:13 [LeeF]
Regrets: NickH
13:57:15 [SteveH__]
SteveH__ has joined #sparql
13:57:23 [LeeF]
Chair: LeeF
13:57:29 [LeeF]
Scribenick: AxelPolleres
13:57:34 [LeeF]
zakim, please call ericp-office
13:57:34 [Zakim]
ok, LeeF; the call is being made
13:57:35 [Zakim]
13:57:41 [AndyS]
zakim, hello
13:57:41 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'hello', AndyS
13:57:50 [bglimm]
wow, I got a line :-)
13:57:52 [Zakim]
+ +44.186.528.aaaa
13:57:53 [Zakim]
13:57:57 [Zakim]
13:58:02 [bglimm]
Zakim, +44.186.528.aaaa is me
13:58:02 [Zakim]
+bglimm; got it
13:58:07 [Zakim]
13:58:08 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
13:58:08 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
13:58:09 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P9 is me
13:58:10 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
13:58:30 [sandro]
zakim, who is talking
13:58:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is talking', sandro
13:58:30 [LeeF]
zakim, who's talking?
13:58:33 [sandro]
zakim, who is talking?
13:58:36 [AxelPolleres]
is it gone?
13:58:41 [Zakim]
LeeF, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P1 (0%), AndyS (22%)
13:58:45 [Zakim]
+ +
13:58:51 [Zakim]
sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P1 (4%), AndyS (64%)
13:58:56 [Zakim]
+ +44.208.439.aacc
13:58:56 [Zakim]
13:59:10 [chimezie]
chimezie has joined #sparql
13:59:13 [SteveH__]
Zakim, aacc is Garlik
13:59:13 [Zakim]
+Garlik; got it
13:59:15 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
13:59:15 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
13:59:16 [Zakim]
13:59:19 [OlivierCorby]
Zakim, aabb is me
13:59:19 [Zakim]
+OlivierCorby; got it
13:59:25 [SteveH__]
Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
13:59:25 [Zakim]
+SteveH__; got it
13:59:25 [LeeF]
zakim, who's here?
13:59:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P1, Ericp, bglimm (muted), Sandro, kasei, OlivierCorby, SteveH__, Ivan
13:59:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see chimezie, SteveH__, Zakim, RRSAgent, bglimm, AxelPolleres, NicoM, OlivierCorby, AndyS, LeeF, SteveH_, ivan, karl, iv_an_ru, AlexPassant, pgearon, trackbot, ericP,
13:59:32 [Zakim]
... kasei, sandro
13:59:32 [Zakim]
13:59:34 [MattPerry]
MattPerry has joined #sparql
13:59:52 [SteveH__]
AndyS's line sounds bad to me too
14:00:00 [SteveH__]
ah, I've got the bad line!
14:00:12 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P16 is me
14:00:12 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:00:21 [SteveH__]
sounds better now
14:00:25 [LeeF]
zakim, ??P1 is AxelPolleres
14:00:25 [Zakim]
+AxelPolleres; got it
14:00:28 [SteveH__]
a bit
14:00:30 [LeeF]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:00:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AxelPolleres, Ericp, bglimm (muted), Sandro, kasei, OlivierCorby, SteveH__, Ivan, AndyS
14:00:30 [chimezie]
Zakim, what is the passcode?
14:00:34 [Zakim]
the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), chimezie
14:00:39 [kasei]
echo is back
14:00:42 [LeeF]
zakim, ericp temporarily has me
14:00:42 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'ericp temporarily has me', LeeF
14:00:44 [LeeF]
zakim, ericp temporarily is LeeF
14:00:44 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'ericp temporarily is LeeF', LeeF
14:00:52 [AndyS]
bglimm, but the cat can chase them around
14:00:52 [LeeF]
zakim, ericp is LeeF
14:00:52 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:00:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aadd
14:01:07 [Zakim]
14:01:08 [MattPerry]
zakim, aadd is me
14:01:08 [Zakim]
+MattPerry; got it
14:01:24 [Zakim]
14:01:30 [AlexPassant]
Zakim, ??P20 is me
14:01:30 [Zakim]
+AlexPassant; got it
14:01:44 [AxelPolleres]
14:01:50 [LeeF]
scribenick: AxelPolleres
14:01:54 [LeeF]
topic: Admin
14:01:57 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:01:58 [chimezie]
Zakim, mute me
14:01:58 [Zakim]
Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted
14:01:59 [AxelPolleres]
topic: admin
14:02:30 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
14:02:45 [LeeF]
Next regular meeting: 2010-10-12 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT (scribe: SteveH )
14:02:50 [ivan]
regrets for next week
14:02:52 [AlexPassant]
Regrets for next week, I'm traveling
14:02:52 [AxelPolleres]
next meeting usual time next week
14:02:56 [ivan]
and the week after, actually
14:03:16 [ivan]
oops, wait! I will be around next week, only the week after will not be
14:03:17 [ivan]
14:03:26 [AxelPolleres]
subtopic: schedule/extension
14:03:28 [NicoM]
Regrets for next two weeks. Will also be travelling
14:03:37 [SteveH__]
echo is not good
14:03:47 [SteveH__]
but can understand if concentrate
14:03:49 [LeeF]
14:04:38 [AxelPolleres]
plan is to have LC Dec 1, CR Feb 1, PR Apr 15, Rec by June 1
14:04:48 [Souri]
Souri has joined #sparql
14:05:22 [AxelPolleres]
feedback from Andy and Steve... Dec 1 might be too tight, rather Dec 15
14:05:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aaee
14:05:55 [AxelPolleres]
... andy had questions about length of LC period length.
14:06:15 [Souri]
zakim, aaee is me
14:06:15 [Zakim]
+Souri; got it
14:07:57 [AndyS]
LC : Dec 15?
14:08:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.562.978.aaff
14:08:10 [Zakim]
14:08:19 [LeeF]
CR : mar 1
14:08:20 [AndyS]
LeeF: don't count 2 weeks of holidays
14:08:21 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, aaff is me
14:08:21 [Zakim]
+AxelPolleres; got it
14:08:26 [AxelPolleres]
can scribe again!
14:08:27 [AndyS]
... CR at March 1
14:08:34 [AndyS]
... 2.5 month CR
14:08:36 [LeeF]
PR : May 15
14:08:45 [LeeF]
REC: Jul 1
14:09:25 [kasei]
q+ to ask how protocol/tests fit into this
14:09:32 [AxelPolleres]
Andy: don't think we need LC period longer, but we need to handle all comments.
14:09:47 [AxelPolleres]
Ivan: Christmas vacation closes down half of the world.
14:10:33 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: andy, what you say is that if we receive comments for 6 weeks we need probably another 4 weeks for addressing them
14:10:58 [AxelPolleres]
... that would help, yes.
14:11:21 [AxelPolleres]
Andy: LC Dec 15... how much time in advance do we need to review all docs?
14:12:00 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: we need to be approving latest 1st week of Dec, reviews two weeks before that, maybe mid november docs need to be finished
14:12:25 [AxelPolleres]
... 1 1/2 months from now... severe changes after that will need to be handled carefully, documented well
14:12:36 [AndyS]
LeeF: Docs need to be basically finished by Nov 15
14:13:01 [AxelPolleres]
... challenge if we go any later is that we would slip another month with the schedule.
14:13:10 [LeeF]
ack kasei
14:13:10 [Zakim]
kasei, you wanted to ask how protocol/tests fit into this
14:13:31 [Zakim]
14:13:33 [AxelPolleres]
greg: how does this schedule affect protocol and test suite?
14:13:48 [AxelPolleres]
Lee: hope for a sprint on the protocol doc
14:14:00 [AxelPolleres]
(Axel: same here for Test Suite)
14:14:19 [Zakim]
14:14:23 [AxelPolleres]
Lee: hesitant to ask someone else at this point, but we lost an editor.
14:14:42 [AxelPolleres]
... I am less concerned about test suite, enough if it comes together by CR
14:14:51 [AxelPolleres]
... but of course better if earlier.
14:15:08 [AxelPolleres]
... don't want to do a separate schedule for those two, though.
14:15:36 [AxelPolleres]
... pushing out further would mean not finish until August.
14:16:00 [AxelPolleres]
... let's rather try Dec 15 the best we can.
14:16:26 [LeeF]
topic: WD publication
14:16:31 [AxelPolleres]
... chairs & team will take care of charter extensions, respectively.
14:16:40 [Zakim]
14:17:02 [AxelPolleres]
let's start with Query (andy&steve)
14:17:06 [AxelPolleres]
Andy: I am done.
14:17:49 [AxelPolleres]
Steve: It's fine from my side.
14:17:58 [SteveH__]
14:17:58 [Zakim]
14:18:00 [sandro]
yes, sound is better now
14:18:11 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: two reviewers agreed to publish last week.
14:18:27 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Publish as working draft
14:18:36 [kasei]
14:18:36 [AxelPolleres]
14:18:37 [bglimm]
14:18:37 [ivan]
14:18:51 [OlivierCorby]
14:18:55 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Publish as working draft
14:19:11 [AxelPolleres]
subtopic: update
14:19:39 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: paul/alex did you have a chance to include Axel's/Andy's comments?
14:19:50 [AxelPolleres]
Alex: worked in almost all comments
14:20:21 [Zakim]
14:20:26 [AxelPolleres]
... will be able to address formal model comments this week
14:20:39 [Zakim]
14:20:41 [AxelPolleres]
Andy: I am fine with publishing "as is"
14:20:47 [SteveH__]
Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
14:20:47 [Zakim]
+SteveH__; got it
14:21:37 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Publish following Axel's OK on the 2nd half of his review
14:21:43 [Zakim]
14:22:06 [bglimm]
14:22:20 [AndyS]
14:22:22 [OlivierCorby]
14:22:24 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Publish following Axel's OK on the 2nd half of his review
14:22:31 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Axel to complete update review in the next two days.
14:22:31 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-321 - Complete update review in the next two days. [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-10-12].
14:22:35 [bglimm]
Zakim, unmute me
14:22:35 [Zakim]
bglimm should no longer be muted
14:22:43 [chimezie]
Zakim, unmute me
14:22:43 [Zakim]
Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted
14:22:48 [AxelPolleres]
subtopic: entailment
14:23:21 [AxelPolleres]
birte: lee's review missing, apart from that fine. had some comments from Enrico (Bolzano), will add some resp. editor's notes.
14:23:32 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Publish as WD
14:23:39 [AxelPolleres]
Lee: let's publish as is for now and discuss further upon published WD
14:23:43 [AxelPolleres]
14:23:46 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:23:46 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:23:49 [bglimm]
14:23:49 [OlivierCorby]
14:23:52 [AndyS]
14:23:53 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Publish as WD
14:24:11 [AxelPolleres]
subtopic: rdf-http-update
14:24:27 [SteveH__]
I'm happy to review http update if not
14:25:01 [AxelPolleres]
Chime: don't remember if we specifically if we had reviews
14:25:21 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: just see that we didn't decide, because chime wasn't around.
14:25:34 [AxelPolleres]
chime: open comments are those from Tim Berners-Lee
14:26:18 [AxelPolleres]
Lee: steve, can you do a review on rdf-http-update?
14:26:31 [AxelPolleres]
Steve: I can see how far I get tonight
14:26:49 [AndyS]
14:26:49 [AxelPolleres]
Lee: happy to publish contingent Steve's review
14:27:24 [AxelPolleres]
Andy: where are we on ?default ? should be noted in the doc.
14:27:41 [AxelPolleres]
Chime: it's noted, but haven't worked it in yet.
14:27:50 [LeeF]
ISSUE: Handling of default graph in HTTP update protocol
14:27:50 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-63 - Handling of default graph in HTTP update protocol ; please complete additional details at .
14:27:58 [AxelPolleres]
Lee: let's create a WG issue not to forget.
14:28:24 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Publish following Steve's OK or Steve's suggested changes and Chime's incorporation of them
14:29:00 [SteveH__]
14:29:10 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Publish following Steve's OK or Steve's suggested changes and Chime's incorporation of them
14:29:13 [bglimm]
14:29:15 [AxelPolleres]
Leef: proposal means, if chime and steve can't agree, we'll just hold off publishing for now.
14:29:17 [chimezie]
Zakim, mute me
14:29:17 [Zakim]
Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted
14:29:28 [AxelPolleres]
subtopic: service description
14:29:46 [kasei]
14:29:54 [AxelPolleres]
greg: updated status of the doc, other outstanding issue was formatting of schema information.
14:30:28 [AxelPolleres]
... if people are ok with that formatting, I will propagate that throughout the doc.
14:31:13 [AxelPolleres]
... I can commit that domain/range right after the call and then would be ready to go.
14:31:22 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Publish as WD after pending formatting changes for schema info
14:31:33 [AndyS]
14:31:35 [bglimm]
14:31:35 [AxelPolleres]
14:31:41 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Publish as WD after pending formatting changes for schema info
14:32:40 [AxelPolleres]
leave Overview and test suite docs out for now.
14:32:46 [Zakim]
14:32:52 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: leave Overview and test suite docs out for now.
14:32:53 [LeeF]
topic: LET/BIND/assignment
14:33:05 [LeeF]
14:33:10 [bglimm]
What is the date, we should use for the documents?
14:33:27 [Zakim]
14:34:35 [bglimm]
14:34:56 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: we will follow up with editors on publication details with editors
14:35:03 [LeeF]
straw poll: include LEt/BIND/whatever in SPARQL 1.1
14:35:07 [AxelPolleres]
... on the date, etc.
14:35:25 [AxelPolleres]
14:35:29 [AndyS]
+1 (include)
14:35:29 [bglimm]
14:35:33 [OlivierCorby]
14:35:33 [ivan]
14:35:35 [AlexPassant]
14:35:35 [SteveH__]
14:35:36 [MattPerry]
14:35:38 [chimezie]
+1 (strong preferrence on *not* using LET as syntax)
14:35:47 [LeeF]
14:35:49 [AxelPolleres]
q+ on syntax
14:35:49 [Souri]
14:35:54 [AndyS]
ack me
14:37:09 [AxelPolleres]
Olivier: I think sparql is a graph match language, so Assignment is IMO not appropriate
14:37:30 [AxelPolleres]
Leef: we still have consensus in favor of inclusing it.
14:37:39 [AxelPolleres]
14:37:49 [LeeF]
two semantics questions
14:38:01 [AxelPolleres]
Leef: two issues on semantics
14:38:11 [LeeF]
1) What happens if you try to assign/bind to a variable that is bound elsewhere in the query?
14:38:18 [AxelPolleres]
... 1) assign/bind a variable that is bound elsewhere in the query
14:38:53 [AxelPolleres]
... simple semantics vs. join semantics.
14:40:05 [AxelPolleres]
... simple disallows that, other semantics creates a one column solution set and joins it with the current binding
14:40:10 [SteveH__]
14:40:58 [LeeF]
ack AxelPolleres
14:40:58 [Zakim]
AxelPolleres, you wanted to comment on syntax
14:41:31 [SteveH__]
extend is simple I believe
14:41:32 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: is the EXTEND operator simple semantics or join/filter semantics?
14:42:01 [LeeF]
AndyS: it is EXTEND, but we have a syntactic restriction on the AS variable
14:42:04 [LeeF]
ack SteveH__
14:42:41 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: I am fine, under the syntactic restriction, if assign is just an extra syntactic sugar for Extend()
14:43:05 [AxelPolleres]
Steve: (??? can you please type in your question?)
14:43:44 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: my idea for join semantics is a row-by-row join
14:43:59 [AxelPolleres]
Steve: is there a definition which does the join over the full table?
14:44:16 [AxelPolleres]
Andy: not sure whether that works, if it is a new variable
14:44:28 [LeeF]
14:44:37 [AxelPolleres]
Steve: that would be a separate piece of algebra.
14:44:44 [SteveH__]
very keen to avoid defining it in row-by-row terms
14:45:27 [AxelPolleres]
14:45:32 [LeeF]
ack AxelPolleres
14:45:36 [AndyS]
Ack - Not row-by-row : better is "add col to table"
14:46:00 [Zakim]
14:46:59 [chimezie]
I have a preference to only assign to new variables otherwise, it really exacerbates Olivier's concerns about taking a drastic step away from graph matching
14:47:21 [SteveH__]
14:47:23 [Zakim]
14:47:24 [AlexPassant]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
14:47:24 [Zakim]
+AlexPassant; got it
14:47:27 [AxelPolleres]
Andy: if we want to make it order independent, then we need the filter effect.
14:48:01 [AxelPolleres]
... let me try to write an example.
14:48:27 [AndyS]
WHERE { ?x :p ?v . KW(?two := 2*?v) . ?x :p ?two }
14:48:50 [AndyS]
(sorry about any emoticons)
14:48:51 [chimezie]
Zakim, unmute me
14:48:51 [Zakim]
Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted
14:49:13 [AxelPolleres]
Leef: we use this feature for UNIONs
14:49:14 [AndyS]
WHERE { ?x ns:q ?v . KW(?two := 2*?v) . ?x ns:q: ?two }
14:49:30 [AndyS]
WHERE { ?x ns:q ?v . ?x ns:q: ?two . KW(?two := 2*?v) . }
14:49:45 [SteveH__]
that would be illegal under simple semantics, right?
14:49:47 [SteveH__]
14:49:57 [AxelPolleres]
Andy: your example seems to be doable by normal FILTER as well?
14:50:22 [AxelPolleres]
14:51:08 [LeeF]
14:51:31 [AndyS]
WHERE { ?x ns:q: ?two . KW(?two := 2) . }
14:51:42 [AndyS]
WHERE { ?x ns:q: 2 }
14:52:13 [LeeF]
WHERE { ?x ns:q: ?two . FILTER(?two = 2)
14:52:32 [kasei]
surely that would have to be sameTerm?
14:52:36 [LeeF]
14:53:11 [LeeF]
straw poll: semantics? filter/join, simple, or 0
14:53:18 [chimezie]
14:53:23 [SteveH__]
strong pref for simple
14:53:28 [bglimm]
14:53:30 [MattPerry]
14:53:31 [AndyS]
filter > simple > 0
14:53:33 [AxelPolleres]
14:53:47 [kasei]
filter (mildly)
14:53:51 [LeeF]
14:53:56 [AlexPassant]
0 / simple
14:54:42 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: see a preference for the simple semantics, will require editors to look into what that means.
14:55:19 [LeeF]
LET ( ?var := expr )
14:55:24 [LeeF]
BIND ( ?var := expr )
14:55:34 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: syntax...
14:55:35 [LeeF]
BIND ( expr AS ?var )
14:56:09 [ericP]
14:56:31 [ericP]
!@#$! NO!
14:56:32 [AndyS]
The syntax restriction is not enforced by the algebra in (extend)
14:56:43 [Souri]
Por Favor | Please
14:57:43 [Zakim]
14:57:55 [SteveH__]
it should behave like FILTER if it looks like FILTER, w.r.t. ordering
14:58:19 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: semantics/order... do we want BIND to "execute" like a FILTER in the end of the group ort "in place"?
14:58:27 [Zakim]
14:58:37 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:58:37 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:58:45 [AxelPolleres]
Andy: in ARQ it is order-independent
14:58:52 [LeeF]
WHERE { ?x ns:q ?v . KW(?two := 2*?v) . ?x ns:q: ?two }
14:58:59 [LeeF]
in place semantics: the above is allowed
14:59:07 [LeeF]
end of group semantics: the above is an error
14:59:20 [SteveH__]
it might be an error either way
14:59:24 [SteveH__]
?two is still in scope
15:00:11 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: we're out of time, let's fix this up first thing next week.
15:00:31 [AxelPolleres]
... further suggestions on algebra for this appreciated on the mailing list!
15:00:41 [AxelPolleres]
... thanks all, adjourned.
15:00:44 [bglimm]
15:00:45 [SteveH__]
15:00:46 [Zakim]
15:00:46 [Zakim]
15:00:47 [Zakim]
15:00:48 [Zakim]
15:00:49 [Zakim]
15:00:49 [Zakim]
15:00:50 [MattPerry]
15:00:51 [Zakim]
15:00:53 [Zakim]
15:00:54 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
15:00:56 [Zakim]
15:00:56 [AxelPolleres]
rrsagent, make records public
15:00:57 [Zakim]
15:00:59 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
15:01:01 [Zakim]
15:01:05 [Zakim]
15:01:07 [Zakim]
15:01:32 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #sparql
15:07:42 [kasei]
and sinceok
15:07:44 [kasei]
15:07:49 [LeeF]
and sinceok yourself
15:07:54 [LeeF]
i see 2 local.css files
15:07:56 [LeeF]
one in /shared
15:07:58 [LeeF]
one in shared/
15:08:05 [LeeF]
and one in service-description-1.1/
15:08:05 [ericP]
and one in sha/red
15:08:14 [kasei]
there are local.css files in many of the document directories...
15:08:20 [kasei]
e.g. query-1.1/local.css
15:08:37 [ericP]
i suspect that the one in shared is a red herring
15:08:43 [kasei]
which is why I'm hesitant to have the shared xmlspec just blindly load it
15:09:12 [LeeF]
it would be nice for the WG to have a single CSS file
15:09:22 [kasei]
entailment and property-paths seem to load their local.css explicitly
15:09:29 [LeeF]
i wonder which of the local.css files are most recent
15:09:32 [kasei]
and query
15:10:00 [ericP]
i suspect that the browser will GET /path/query11/Overview.xml, then apply /path/shared/xmlspec.xslt which will tell it to load /path/query11/local.css
15:10:44 [kasei]
the documents aren't consistent on this. some load ../shared/local.css and some load just local.css.
15:10:55 [ericP]
ahh, interesting
15:12:16 [LeeF]
merging local.css files seems ... unlikely to make me happy
15:14:16 [LeeF]
hmm hmm
15:14:18 [LeeF]
what a mess :)
15:15:06 [LeeF]
so xmlspec.xsl in shared/ includes @import url("../shared/local.css");
15:15:26 [LeeF]
we could also have it @import url("local.css");
15:15:30 [LeeF]
but i don't know what that would break
15:17:02 [kasei]
maybe I should copy the other docs in their local importing of the (local) local.css?
15:17:06 [kasei]
(if that makes any sense :)
15:17:58 [LeeF]
how do they do that? i see that entailment duplicates the xsl stuff, but I don't think that's a good idea
15:18:46 [kasei]
yeah, that's what I was looking at.
15:19:43 [LeeF]
i think we just add import local.css after the other import
15:19:48 [LeeF]
i'm going to do that and see what i break :)
15:20:55 [LeeF]
OK, I checked that in
15:21:05 [LeeF]
kasei, this should allow you to put whatever you want in the SD local.css and have it included
15:21:08 [LeeF]
but i haven't tried it out :)
15:21:40 [bglimm]
I think I just copied initially from query and I recently changed to use the local.css
15:22:10 [bglimm]
I think we had some discussions before the last pub round and agreed that local should be local and include our own additions
15:22:13 [kasei]
my local.css file is full of junk I'm not using. I'm going to optimistically assume that removing it all will be OK.
15:22:49 [LeeF]
sure, let's see
15:23:32 [bglimm]
It took me ages to figure out what is loading what and where I have to add something to make it have an effect
15:24:20 [bglimm]
I can try and clean up. So should I be using xmlspec.xsl from shared?
15:24:52 [LeeF]
i think so
15:25:05 [LeeF]
in the end what we need to publish is something like what's in docs/pub right now
15:25:07 [bglimm]
Ok, I'll see what happens if I do that ;-)
15:25:18 [LeeF]
a dated directory with subdirectories for each document that are completely self-contained
15:25:23 [LeeF]
but i think a shared xmlspec should do it
15:25:39 [kasei]
ok Lee, that seems to have worked.
15:25:47 [kasei]
I'll commit my updated doc and local.css
15:26:31 [bglimm]
There are so many files in entailment and I don't even know which ones are required, will experiment a bit
15:26:54 [bglimm]
what's diffspec.xml doing? Do I need it?
15:35:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Philippe, in SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
15:35:05 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:35:07 [Zakim]
Attendees were Sandro, bglimm, kasei, AndyS, +, +44.208.439.aacc, Ivan, OlivierCorby, SteveH__, AxelPolleres, LeeF, +1.603.897.aadd, Chimezie_Ogbuji, MattPerry,
15:35:09 [Zakim]
... AlexPassant, +1.603.897.aaee, Souri, +1.562.978.aaff, Philippe
15:44:31 [bglimm]
Ok, I now use the shared files and deleted all files in the entailment dir apart from xmlspec.xml and gen.html
15:44:47 [bglimm]
The only problem is that now all contributors are listed as editors
15:45:18 [OlivierCorby]
OlivierCorby has left #sparql
16:10:14 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #sparql
16:24:24 [bglimm]
Hm, most seem to use REC-xml.xsl, so I also do that now. That can also handle contributors and includes sparql.xsl
16:48:56 [SteveH__]
SteveH__ has joined #sparql
16:55:21 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
16:55:52 [AxelPolleres]
have some questions on fed query... andy/eric... still around?
16:56:38 [AxelPolleres]
as for allowing variables on fed query, we still have the open issue on what these variables can bind to, yes?
16:57:41 [AxelPolleres]
is there *any* way to do this without order dependence? The only one coming to my mind essentially being a "service set" similar to the set of named graphs in the dataset, for the GRAPH pattern, but that wouldn't be nice, yes?
16:59:03 [AxelPolleres]
another order-independent alternative would be to execute SERVICE last, just like FILTERs within a group... did I miss any discussion/proposed solutions on that or does that reflect the options we currently have?
17:10:02 [LeeF]
bglimm, kasei, thanks!
17:18:45 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: I have the same concerns/questions about the federation stuff...
17:19:13 [AxelPolleres]
I will summarise my questions in an email for now...
17:29:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sparql
17:31:52 [AxelPolleres]
kasei, mail sent... comments welcome!
17:40:47 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: I don't understand "why we shouldn't allow variables in BINDINGS"
17:41:50 [AxelPolleres]
well, according to the current draft we don't... and actually it only makes sense of the semantics is order dependent
17:42:09 [kasei]
we don't what? I'm not sure what you're talking about...
17:42:26 [kasei]
not sure why you'd want to 'allow variables in BINDINGS', or even what that would mean.
18:04:36 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #sparql
18:24:09 [AxelPolleres]
18:24:15 [AxelPolleres]
no variables allowed here.
18:28:58 [AxelPolleres]
What I meant with variables in BINDINGS, was basically the possiblity to "injcect" certain bindings from outside into the SERVICE query...
18:31:45 [AxelPolleres]
e.g. {:greg :knows ?b SERVICE <dblp> { ?b :made ?doc } }
18:34:12 [AxelPolleres]
I don't want to necessarily dump all the :made relations from SERVICE to answer this query, but rather only query those for the friends of :greg... ie. I would expect to be able to do something like BINDINGS, i.e. pass over the results for X from the pattern { :greg :knows ?b } ... but I guess you are right that this doesn't fit directly with BINDINGS as we have it at the moment.
19:05:08 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
19:06:20 [karl]
karl has joined #sparql
19:06:45 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: an implementation is free to use BINDINGS when it makes that SERVICE call... but it shouldn't be user-facing.
20:03:46 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #sparql
20:03:50 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #sparql
20:37:23 [karl]
karl has joined #sparql
21:18:06 [karl]
karl has joined #sparql
21:59:01 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
21:59:20 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #sparql
23:47:59 [karl]
karl has joined #sparql